Same sex marriage settled.. again.. 175-123

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sure, no problem with that.

But you don't go around saying 'well we already know where he stands so it wouldn't suprise me' crap, and expect me to go for that.

Personally I never felt that CB was comparing the two...or even calling gay people sodomites. He was simply making a comment about sodomy.

My question would be why?

The thread is about gay people.

The thread is not about sodomites

The only reason to bring it up would be to connect the two.

So either he's totally off topic, or he's calling gay people sodomites.

He can let us know which it is.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Why does it have to be a societal battle? Why does it have to be 'gays'? That implies all gays. I have had personal experiences where I have been discriminated against by gay people just for being Christian. It is assumed all the time that because I am Christian I am also a bigot and a hater. That's another form of discrimination.

I agree this is discrimination if it happens.
I'm simpley asking when it happens. Not sure what they rest of your post is about. If it happens all the time you should be able to give an example.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I understand where you are coming from. However, it is specifically written in the legislation that any Church can refuse to marry gays and lesbians if it goes against their religious beliefs. There was a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to see if this legislation would contravene either the rights of gays and lesbians or the religious rights of the Churches who refused to marry gays and lesbians. The Supreme Court ruled that no it did not contravene the rights of gays and lesbians nor did it infringe upon the religious rights of the Churches. So there is no threat to religious bodies.

The difference is, Bill C-38 protects Religions, not the religious, and even so, only protects Churches from direct court challenges. Nothing in C-38 precludes the ability for a group to attack a Church's charitable status on the grounds that the Church "does not adhere to Canadian values, and fosters discrimination and intolerance." They wouldn't take a Church to court simply because they "refuse to solemnize Same-Sex Marriage," that, as you pointed out, is protected. However, without charitable status, no Church could survive indefinitely. Therefore, they'd be forced to change their policy. This is not some "boogeyman" I cleverly crafted for the purposes of debate, it was considered in my Poli 329 class as the next step to watch for, as well as a "significant legal threat to Churches in Canada."

When something like Bill 208 in Alberta came around to protect the religious (and religious schools), it was immediately dismissed as intolerant and discriminatory (despite the right of religious schools to teach their religious ideals, including pro-life and anti-SSM stances).

Why is protection of beliefs considered discriminatory? To me, just because someone doesn't like them is not good enough. Realistically, its in the same league as the acceptance of Sikhs in the RCMP wearing turbans, they are too, are defending their religious beliefs. In this case, some people don't like the ideas coming from the religious. Unless those ideas are actively and tangibly fostering hate and intolerance, those ideas are protected by law and no one's right to interfere with. Disagreeing with someone's stance does not equal intolerance, even if that person's stance disagrees with your lifestyle and desires no active part in it.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I appreciate that you are trying to come up with a solution that is equal and fair but I think that abolishing civil marriages is a little overly dramatic. It is kind of like amputating a broken arm instead of trying to heal it.

Candidly, its easy to call it overly dramatic when from your angle, your needs have been addressed. As a Libertarian, I see this issue as one side achieving their agenda at the detriment of another, and that is not the way enlightened and free societies are supposed to work. The best way to satisfy both sides is to take the religion out of marriage, and to provide equality for both gay and straight couples in the eyes of the Law. Tolerance is a two-way street, and both sides should be considered and tolerated. To date, this has only happened superficially and haphazardly.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

If we abolish civil marriage, those who don't want to be married in a Church/synagogue/mosque but want to be recognized as married would be denied that recognition.

Firstly, we're not "abolishing" civil marriage, we are calling a spade a spade, and renaming it more accurately. In this case "civil union."

Secondly, why would the non-religious even want to be married in a Church/Synagogue/Mosque? Do they truly want their legal declaration to be considered akin to a religious rite? They aren't religious and already can be legally refused a Church marriage. To be married in a Church, one has to prove they are religious and have had whatever sacraments/rites/ceremonies etc. are required of them.

What these people want is actually a civil union. If they wanted to be bound in Holy Matrimony (the root concept of marriage), they would find a willing Church and fulfill any necessary requirements.

The Government would essentially be acknowledging that they piggy-backed off a religious tradition, and that their definition, and the desired intent of Holy Matrimony historically, no longer match. Which is fine, its called progression. Traditional marriage was designed to bind a man and a woman in the eyes of God for the means of consolidating property and title for the greater purpose of procreation as per God's will. Contemporary marriage does not mean that at all. Contemporary marriage is the declaration of love and devotion between two people. No mention of procreation, property or religion.

[jzA]

Originally Posted by peter12

Isn't every kid brutally scarred from walking in on his normal straight parents? I know I sure didn't enjoy that experience, I'm not sure that if they had been gay, it would have been any worse.

your kidding , right?

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

The difference is, Bill C-38 protects Religions, not the religious, and even so, only protects Churches from direct court challenges. Nothing in C-38 precludes the ability for a group to attack a Church's charitable status on the grounds that the Church "does not adhere to Canadian values, and fosters discrimination and intolerance."

Has the Catholic Church lost its charitable status for not ordaining women even though it is in direct conflict with Section 15 of the Charter? No. Why hasn't it? Because it is protected by its constitutional right to religious freedom. It is a boogey-man argument.

Disagreeing with someone's stance does not equal intolerance, even if that person's stance disagrees with your lifestyle and desires no active part in it.

While I take issue with your terminology of homosexuality being a lifestyle, I don't disagree with much of what you have said here. I have never expected the Canadian people to change overnight to be completely accepting of gays and lesbians. I believe that there are good and decent people who don't understand and don't want to understand homosexuality. I certainly do my best to be a good representative of gay men and while I aim to change the hearts of those who disagree with who I am, there is not much more that I can do.

Firstly, we're not "abolishing" civil marriage, we are calling a spade a spade, and renaming it more accurately. In this case "civil union."

Actually, yes you are abolishing civil marriage. If the word marriage is not being used, it has been abolished. Of course the benefits of civil unions will match the benefits of marriage but it isn't the same.

Secondly, why would the non-religious even want to be married in a Church/Synagogue/Mosque? Do they truly want their legal declaration to be considered akin to a religious rite? They aren't religious and already can be legally refused a Church marriage. To be married in a Church, one has to prove they are religious and have had whatever sacraments/rites/ceremonies etc. are required of them.

That is my point. How do people who do not want to be married in a Church/Synagogue/Mosque get married? Doesn't denying them the opportunity to be married based on their atheism/agnosticism contravene their right to religion?

The Government would essentially be acknowledging that they piggy-backed off a religious tradition, and that their definition, and the desired intent of Holy Matrimony historically, no longer match. Which is fine, its called progression. Traditional marriage was designed to bind a man and a woman in the eyes of God for the means of consolidating property and title for the greater purpose of procreation as per God's will. Contemporary marriage does not mean that at all. Contemporary marriage is the declaration of love and devotion between two people. No mention of procreation, property or religion.

Clearly you subscribe to the idea of framer's intent when you study history. I, on the other hand, see history and the law as a living tree which grows and expands. Maybe when the idea of civil marriage was adopted centuries ago, there were only two dimensions of marriage: legal and religious. But over the years, a third dimension developed. The third dimension is the societal dimension of marriage. The terminology and traditions of marriage have become adopted by both secular and religious societies. Marriage is no longer simply a religious event...the wedding day is something that many girls dream of and are prepared for from a young age. It has been romanticized by our culture regardless of whether it is a religious or a secular event. If the government no longer recognizes "marriage", it is denying those who want to celebrate a secular marriage ceremony/wedding based on their atheism.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by jzA

Im sorry winsor but a queer is a queer it doesnt matter if its two lesbians or two gays. Walking in on your parents is no big deal, but walking in on your gay parents, thats a whole different story.

How is it any different? Sex is sex...

[getbak]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

How is it any different? Sex is sex...

...and your parents having sex is just wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sure it matters.

Quit moving the goalposts...CB was accused of calling gay people sodomites...I'm trying to find out where.

Bah nevermind, Jiri explained it so very much better at the top of this page.

I just don't get comments like these.....

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is interesting that sodomites argue that their sexual choices are natural. They point to the animal kingdom for evidence to this fact. Well if sodomy and other such practices are natural because they are found within the animal kingdom it must be also true the same sex relationships having and raising children is unnatural. Right?

http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/...7-3ceb3a8043df

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jzA

Im sorry winsor but a queer is a queer it doesnt matter if its two lesbians or two gays. Walking in on your parents is no big deal, but walking in on your gay parents, thats a whole different story.

Ok, but how? Seriously.

One in the same.

[WCE]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Ok, but how? Seriously.

One in the same.

I am guessing the answer is going to have something to do with the word "icky"...

This issue is such an energy-drainer when there are so many other important things going on in this country. Moralists will hold on until their last breath, and that is too bad.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

My question would be why?

The thread is about gay people.

The thread is not about sodomites

The only reason to bring it up would be to connect the two.

So either he's totally off topic, or he's calling gay people sodomites.

He can let us know which it is.

So he's off topic. Whatever though...I guess we'll stick with the 'it wouldn't suprise me' viewpoint.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Azure

So he's off topic. Whatever though...I guess we'll stick with the 'it wouldn't suprise me' viewpoint.

Is he off-topic?
Or is he calling gay people sodimites?

I still haven't heard from CB to clarify and as much as you are berating other posters for making assumptions how are you able to conclude that he is indeed "off topic".

Sorry man I just have no clue why you are defending this so vigioursly.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Is he off-topic?
Or is he calling gay people sodimites?

I still haven't heard from CB to clarify and as much as you are berating other posters for making assumptions how are you able to conclude that he is indeed "off topic".

Sorry man I just have no clue why you are defending this so vigioursly.

Defending what?

I simply wanted a poster to point out where CB was calling gay people sodomites.

I have yet to hear a proper answer....and not the 'it wouldn't suprise me' BS.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Has the Catholic Church lost its charitable status for not ordaining women even though it is in direct conflict with Section 15 of the Charter? No. Why hasn't it? Because it is protected by its constitutional right to religious freedom. It is a boogey-man argument.

Wrong. Its a completely different argument, and could still potentially happen. The reason women have not sued the Church is two-fold. One, women who wish to join the seminary are generally rather devout Catholics, why would they attempt to cripple their own Church? Two, its something the Feminist agenda really has no interest in. Their primary focus is fair wages and fair business practices. Getting women in the Catholic seminary is not a priority. Whereas, with the Gay lobby, there are many who feel that Bill C-38 is not equal enough, and that religious gays have the right to be married in their Church. Hence, it is in their crosshairs since to many it is a priority. Just because something hasn't happened YET does not mean it can never happen. Its like saying there will never be a Tsunami that hits Vancouver Island, simply because no one alive has seen it. Its not a boogey-man argument at all. Like I said, I didn't make it up.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

While I take issue with your terminology of homosexuality being a lifestyle, I don't disagree with much of what you have said here. I have never expected the Canadian people to change overnight to be completely accepting of gays and lesbians. I believe that there are good and decent people who don't understand and don't want to understand homosexuality. I certainly do my best to be a good representative of gay men and while I aim to change the hearts of those who disagree with who I am, there is not much more that I can do.

I somewhat agree with this. I also think the best way for society to accept gays and lesbians is to not be forced to by government. I think societies ran by states tend to run into more problems than societies allowed to progress on their own. Again, a different arguement. However, I stand by my use of the word lifestyle, just as my lifestyle is heterosexual. Its not a derogatory word, it simply means the way you live your life. Whether or not it is a choice is immaterial.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Actually, yes you are abolishing civil marriage. If the word marriage is not being used, it has been abolished. Of course the benefits of civil unions will match the benefits of marriage but it isn't the same.
That is my point. How do people who do not want to be married in a Church/Synagogue/Mosque get married? Doesn't denying them the opportunity to be married based on their atheism/agnosticism contravene their right to religion?

No, it doesn't contravene their right. They are choosing not to be religious by having a JP perform the ceremony, rather than a priest. With a change to civil unions, they would actually be free of the religious connotation that they tacitly rejected by not going to a Church to get married. People will still call it whatever they want, that really doesn't matter, people misuse words and descriptors all the time. In the eyes of the law, which is all they really care about anyway, they are just as married as the person who went to Church. The difference would be made more formal and obvious, that there are religious marriages and legal ones, one being ceremonial, and one being substantial.

Like I said, should they want to, nothing will stop them from going through the process at a Church.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Clearly you subscribe to the idea of framer's intent when you study history. I, on the other hand, see history and the law as a living tree which grows and expands. Maybe when the idea of civil marriage was adopted centuries ago, there were only two dimensions of marriage: legal and religious. But over the years, a third dimension developed. The third dimension is the societal dimension of marriage. The terminology and traditions of marriage have become adopted by both secular and religious societies. Marriage is no longer simply a religious event...the wedding day is something that many girls dream of and are prepared for from a young age. It has been romanticized by our culture regardless of whether it is a religious or a secular event. If the government no longer recognizes "marriage", it is denying those who want to celebrate a secular marriage ceremony/wedding based on their atheism.

I completely disagree. They aren't denying anything, they are actually granting something new. Religious sovereignty, freedom from being intertwined with civil, secular law, at least in something benevolent like marriage. You talk about the romanticism of marriage, but when you watch a movie or TV show with marriage, how many times do you see a lawyer or judge performing the ceremony, and how many times do you see a priest of some sort? Overwhelmingly, the priest. Is not the status quo to romanticize the traditional religious marriage that would still be avaiable to any couple who's views reflect their Church of choice? You could argue that is because the Americans have dismissed gay marriage and adhere strickly to the religious tradition of marriage (despite high divorce rates), but Canadians are influenced by American media much moreso than Canadian, and this would most definitely affect the "young girl's dreams of wedding bells."

Marriage is a religious exercise that has been adopted by governments who were originally religious. "God save the Queen," "One nation under God," etc. Since we are attempting to distance ourselves from these statements, a secular society must responsibly take this part away. This "third" dimension you speak of, which has evolved, will evolve with the legal one as the most important factors for marriage. You make it sound like by secularizing marriage, we are destroying the hopes and dreams and raging chaos across the land, when simply, that is nothing but a fallacy. When in reality, it is a decision that would be looked back upon in hindsight as the right thing to do. Just like women's suffrage and emancipation were considered rocking the boat too much at first, but common sense today.

I also disagree with your labelling me solely as a believer of "framer's intent." I tend to believe in both the "living tree" and with "framer's intent." The Law and Society naturally flow like a living tree, history does as well, but every once in a while, leaders and lawmakers come along with their view of the world and "frame" legislation to reflect that, or certain events occur which bring about a specific sequence of events (ie: Treaty of Versailles putting Germany on the road to WW2). Its very short-sighted to see it as one or the other, since it really is not.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

Defending what?

I simply wanted a poster to point out where CB was calling gay people sodomites.

I have yet to hear a proper answer....and not the 'it wouldn't suprise me' BS.

Lets discuss it then Azure, and you can subsequently get your head out of your ass.

It is interesting that sodomites argue that their sexual choices are natural.

First off, I've never heard of Heterosexual couples having to defend their preference for Sodomy. When CB makes reference to the fact that their choices are "Natural", it involves Choice. During Posts in previous threads CalgaryBorn has repeatedly stated that he believes that Being Gay is a CHOICE, and that no one is born gay.

They point to the animal kingdom for evidence to this fact. Well if sodomy and other such practices are natural because they are found within the animal kingdom it must be also true the same sex relationships having and raising children is unnatural. Right?

Seemless transition isn't it?

He moves right from talking about Sodomites/Sodomy directly to Same-Sex Marriage in the same paragraph. So is he going off topic in the exact same paragraph? Since he started talking about Sodomy/Sodomites in his first sentence, it would seem to reason that his general direction where he decided to take this statement in a thread about gay marriage and gay relationships - was that gays should not have children.

[Azure]

First off, I've never heard of Heterosexual couples having to defend their preference for Sodomy. When CB makes reference to the fact that their choices are "Natural", it involves Choice. During Posts in previous threads CalgaryBorn has repeatedly stated that he believes that Being Gay is a CHOICE, and that no one is born gay.

I don't give a crap about previous posts.

Sodomy extends beyond homosexual activity...and CB never stated that homosexual men engage in sodomy...although that seems to be the defintion Wikipedia gives us.

Those who engage in sodomy, usually limited in usage to male homosexuals, although heterosexuals who engage in oral or anal sex are engaging in sodomy in some jurisdictions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomites

Seemless transition isn't it?

Assumption you mean.

He moves right from talking about Sodomites/Sodomy directly to Same-Sex Marriage in the same paragraph. So is he going off topic in the exact same paragraph? Since he started talking about Sodomy/Sodomites in his first sentence, it would seem to reason that his general direction where he decided to take this statement in a thread about gay marriage and gay relationships - was that gays should not have children.

Nice transition there....I never felt his post had anything to do with calling gay people sodomites.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't give a crap about previous posts.

Well you should. Considering his post was a reference to Sodomy being a choice.

I probably should have considered your posting history before I wasted time responding to you.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nice transition there....I never felt his post had anything to do with calling gay people sodomites.

You should. That was one of his two premises. It was a false premise and his arguement is both invalid and unsound.

Animals as well as humans can produce offspring even if they practice sodomy.

[Azure]

Actually forget it.

I'll just probably get a skill point taken away for replying.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Barnes

You should. That was one of his two premises. It was a false premise and his arguement is both invalid and unsound.

Animals as well as humans can produce offspring even if they practice sodomy.

Sure....nobody denied that.